Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Expelled Gets an F

Posted by ARI Media at 10:15 AM

Irvine, CA—Today Ben Stein's anti-evolution documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opens in theaters. The film claims that advocates of "intelligent design"—the view that life is so complex it must be the product of a "higher intelligence"—are the persecuted victims of a "scientific establishment" dogmatically committed to evolution.

"The premise of Expelled is that proponents of 'intelligent design' have been shunned, denied tenure, and even fired because of a conspiracy to quash the scientific evidence supporting their theory," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But the truth is: there is no evidence supporting their theory. Intelligent design is completely devoid of any positive scientific content, and consists of nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on evolution. To the extent intelligent design advocates are facing obstacles in academia it is because they are not doing real science: they haven't been 'expelled' they have flunked out of the scientific community, just as a faith healer would flunk out of medical school.

"Observe that intelligent design advocates have pumped millions into publicity-seeking, rather than appealing to scientists with facts and logical arguments. They have spent more time at Christian 'apologetics seminars' than scientific conferences, and have attempted to use the courts to force schools to teach their ideas. Now they are hoping to dupe the movie-going public with a film that misrepresents Darwin's theory and the array of facts that support it—just as the makers of Expelled misrepresented the nature of the film in order to bamboozle respected evolutionary scientists into participating in it.

"Intelligent design advocates will do anything to advance their views—except science.

"The reason for that is simple: doing science has never been their goal. Their goal is to make biblical creationism appear scientific in order to skirt the constitutional ban on religion in public schools. Contrary to the film's claims, the real dogmatists are not the defenders of Darwin, but the religiously motivated advocates of intelligent design."

### ### ###

Dr. Lockitch has a PhD in Physics from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). He writes and edits for ARI and is a professor in the Objectivist Academic Center, where he teaches undergraduate writing and a graduate course on the history of physics. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Dr. Keith Lockitch is available for interviews. To book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson: 800-365-6552 ext. 213 (office) 949-838-5137 (cell) larryb@aynrand.org

For more information on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARI's Web site. Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

The Real Meaning of Earth Hour by Keith Lockitch

Posted by ARI Media at 10:25 AM

On the evening of Saturday, March 29, cities around the world turned off their lights for one hour to "raise" awareness about global warming. In observation of Earth Hour, iconic landmarks such as the Sears Tower and the Sydney Opera House went dark, while participating individuals turned off residential lights.

The purpose of Earth Hour, according to its organizers, who plan to make it an annual event, is to encourage people to think about how they can reduce their energy consumption. While the event itself—one hour with the lights off—admittedly had little effect on carbon emissions, what matters, say the organizers, is the symbolic meaning of the event. So what is the meaning of Earth Hour?

We hear constantly that the debate is over on climate change--that it is now an indisputable fact that human carbon emissions are causing a planetary emergency. Earth Hour is intended to showcase public concern about global warming and to inspire people to take practical actions to reduce their "carbon footprints."

But it is far from indisputable that we face any sort of planetary crisis. Predictions of catastrophic global warming have long been disputed, and continue to be disputed, by numerous serious scientists skeptical of the global warming "consensus."

Furthermore, what is never mentioned is the fact that reducing greenhouse gases to the degree sought by global warming activists would, itself, cause great harm.

Politicians and environmentalists, including those behind Earth Hour, are not calling on people just to change a few light bulbs, they are calling for a truly massive reduction in carbon emissions—as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels. Because our energy is overwhelmingly carbon-based (in 2005, fossil fuels made up 86 percent of world energy production), this necessarily means a massive reduction in our energy consumption.

People don't have a clear sense of what this would mean in practice. We, in the industrialized world, take our abundant energy for granted and don't consider just how much we benefit from its use in every minute of our every day. We drive our cars to work and school, we sit in our lighted, heated homes and offices, powering our computers and countless other labor-saving appliances, and we count on the indispensable values that industrial energy makes possible: hospitals and grocery stores, factories and farms, international travel and global telecommunications. It is hard for us to project the degree of sacrifice and harm that global-warming policies would force upon us.

This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off our use of fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spent the hour star-gazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offered special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.

The participants of Earth Hour spent an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, but all the while they remained safe in the knowledge that the comforts and life-saving benefits of industrial civilization were just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what our lives would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that global-warming activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.

What is really needed is greater awareness of just how indispensable carbon-based energy is to human life. Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Let those who claim that we need to stop emitting carbon dioxide try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible. Those who claim that we must cut off our carbon emissions to prevent an alleged global catastrophe need to learn the indisputable fact that cutting off our carbon emissions would be a global catastrophe.

It is true that the real importance of Earth Hour is its symbolic meaning. But that meaning is the opposite of the one intended. The lights of our cities and monuments are a symbol of human achievement, of what mankind has accomplished in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. Earth Hour presents the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights going out. Its call for people to abandon their use of energy and to rejoice at the sight of skyscrapers going dark makes its real meaning unmistakably clear: what Earth Hour represents is the renunciation of industrial civilization.

Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on science and environmentalism. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

'Earth Hour' Sends a Deceptive Message

Posted by ARI Media at 8:10 PM

Irvine, CA—Last Saturday evening, cities around the world turned off their lights for one hour to "raise awareness about global warming." In observation of "Earth Hour," iconic landmarks such as the Sears Tower and the Sydney Opera House went dark, while participating individuals turned off residential lights.

According to its organizers, the purpose of the annual event is to encourage people to think about how they can reduce their energy consumption. While they acknowledge that one hour with the lights off would have little effect on carbon emissions, the organizers say that what matters is the symbolic meaning of the event.

"In fact," says Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, "the symbolic message that Earth Hour sends is deceptive and destructive.

"Despite the constant claim that 'the debate is over' on climate change, it is nowhere near a proven fact that human carbon emissions are causing a 'planetary emergency.' But it is a fact that carbon-based energy is a life-and-death necessity in today's world.

"Earth Hour sends the false message that we must cut off our carbon emissions and that doing so would be easy and even fun! People went star-gazing and held torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offered special candle-lit dinners during the hour. This bears no relation whatsoever to the kinds of sacrifices that would be forced upon us if global warming activists succeed in imposing real carbon-reduction policies.

"We, in the West, take our abundant energy for granted. It is hard for us to imagine what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian restrictions on energy use that global warming activists are demanding. Earth Hour clouds the issue even more by making the renunciation of energy seem like a big party. People spend a fun hour in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the comforts and life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away.

"What we really need to raise awareness about is just how indispensable carbon-based energy is to human life. Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about "Earth Month," without any form of fossil fuel energy? Let those who claim that we need to stop emitting carbon dioxide try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or factories, grocery stores or hospitals; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.

"If there is any symbolic significance to Earth Hour, it is the opposite of its intended meaning. The lights of our modern cities are a symbol of human progress, of what mankind has achieved in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. But during Earth Hour we see the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights going out—of people rejoicing at the sight of skyscrapers going dark. If anything, what Earth Hour represents is the renunciation of civilization."

### ### ###

Dr. Lockitch has a PhD in Physics from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). He writes and edits for ARI and is a professor in the Objectivist Academic Center, where he teaches undergraduate writing and a graduate course on the history of physics. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, March 21, 2008

The Easter Masqueradeby Keith Lockitch

Posted by ARI Media at 12:08 AM

In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII established our modern calendar and fixed the rules determining the date of Easter. This year Easter falls on March 23, but from year to year it can shift by as much as a month on the Gregorian calendar.

Finding Easter's date for a given year requires a surprising degree of scientific acumen. The last things one might expect to see in, say, the Book of Common Prayer are tables of numbers and rules for mathematical calculations—but there they are, nevertheless.

At first glance, this seems to exemplify a kind of harmony between religion and science, a peaceful concord between faith and reason. Indeed, a variety of public figures—from prominent scientists to the Pope—have promoted the view that science and religion are not adversaries but complementary and mutually supporting fields. "Truth cannot contradict truth," they declare, implying that the truths discovered by reasoning from sensory evidence cannot clash with the "truths" of religious dogma.

A closer look, however, reveals the long history of the hostility of faith towards reason—which continues to this day. Violent clashes between the two are not only possible but unavoidable, and the notion that religion can coexist on friendly terms with science and reason is false.

For reasons both biblical and astronomical, Easter is defined as the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox (the first day of spring). To get his calendar rules right, Pope Gregory had to rely on some of the best astronomers and mathematicians of his day. Ironically, one of these was Nicolas Copernicus, whose sun-centered astronomy engendered one of history's most famous clashes between science and religion.

A faithful canon of the Catholic Church, Copernicus supported the calendar project happily. His scientific work was partly motivated by the goal of predicting more accurately the first day of spring and the subsequent full moon. He modestly expressed the hope that by facilitating the calculation of Easter his labors would "contribute somewhat even to the Commonwealth of the Church."

At first Copernicus's work was warmly accepted by Church officials—but only because they didn't take it seriously. Sixteenth century common sense held that the Sun orbits the Earth, which is motionless at the center of the universe. More important, Church scholars held that the true structure of the world is established not by science but by official interpretation of Scripture. Hence, they regarded the motion of the Earth as nothing more than a convenient mathematical assumption—an idea justified solely by its utility in making astronomical predictions. Thinking they could evade a clash between reason and revelation, they denied the reality of the Earth's motion but used the Copernican theory nonetheless.

This contradiction became inescapable decades after the Gregorian reform when Galileo removed the objections from common sense by explaining the physics of the moving Earth. But the objections from faith proved more intractable. Galileo's outspoken defense of the Earth's motion as a serious physical idea forced Church leaders to take a stand—and when they got off the fence, they came down firmly against science. That the Church persecuted Galileo for defending Copernican theory is well-known. Less frequently acknowledged is the utter hypocrisy of that act: the Church persecuted Galileo for defending the very ideas on which its Easter reform depended.

In 1992 Pope John Paul II grudgingly admitted—350 years too late—that his predecessors had been wrong. He called the Church's persecution of Galileo a "sad misunderstanding" that "now belongs to the past."

But does it?

Although few would now declare the Earth the motionless center of the universe, it is not difficult to find those who claim it to be 6,000 years old and deny the long, slow evolution of its species. More alarming is that the same Dark Ages mentality that dragged Galileo before the Inquisition now seeks to prohibit entire fields of scientific research, such as therapeutic cloning. The war of religion against science has merely shifted to new battlegrounds, but it still rages on.

Religion's alleged harmony with science is a fraudulent masquerade, extending only insofar as religious dogmas are not called into question. True defenders of science must be committed to reason as an absolute principle—following facts wherever they lead and bowing to no authorities but logic and reality. And they must understand that the servile obedience demanded by faith is wholly incompatible with science—and with the rational thinking on which all human progress and prosperity depends.

Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The Enemies of Energy

Posted by ARI Media at 1:55 AM

Irvine, CA—King Ranch and the environmentalist coalition Coastal Habitat Alliance are suing Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson in an attempt to stop the creation of a windmill farm along the Gulf Coast in Kenedy County. According to the suit, the wind farm could kill migrating birds and damage the bay.

"From fossil fuels to nuclear energy, environmentalists have consistently opposed the development and use of every practical energy source," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "For decades they have been urging us to find viable sources of 'alternative energy.' Yet now that wind farms have become just such a source, environmentalists object to them as well, making it unmistakably clear that enabling us to efficiently power our industrial society was never their goal.

"All of the wealth Americans enjoy—the computers, the cars, the homes, the food, the medicines that enable us to live longer, healthier, happier lives—depends on large-scale creation of energy. To demand that we scale back on energy production and willingly accept crippling privations in the name of 'conservation,' is to demand that we return to pre-industrial squalor.

"Might that be what environmentalists really want?"

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, June 29, 2007

Bush's Stem Cell Veto by Keith Lockitch

Posted by ARI Media at 6:45 PM

Contrary to the claims of President George W. Bush ("Bush will try to soften stem cell veto," June 21), there is nothing unethical about destroying embryos in the course of scientific research. An embryo is a potential, not an actual, human being, just as canvas is a potential, not an actual, work of art. It is a primitive cluster of cells, which is no more unethical to destroy than the cells that make up one's appendix.

Calling an embryo "human life" is an evasion of the distinction between a mass of undifferentiated cells in a test tube and an actual, living human being. Embryonic stem cell research could potentially improve the lives of millions. In an effort to obscure the anti-life consequences of his opposition to such research, the president cited new discoveries that suggest scientists might one day be able to create pluripotent cells from non-embryonic cells, supposedly making the "unethical" destruction of embryonic cells unnecessary.

But human welfare demands that scientists pursue every avenue that promises to realize the potential of stem cell technology—not abandon embryonic stem cell research in order to assuage faith- based objections.

We should praise this research for the life-enhancing breakthroughs it promises—and condemn the immoral attempt to return us to the Dark Ages, before science was liberated from the chains of religious dogmatism.

Keith Lockitch is a PhD in physics and a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Monday, April 23, 2007

Abortion Ban Should Have Been Overturned

Posted by ARI Media at 8:01 PM

Irvine, CA—The Supreme Court has upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which outlaws a particular method of late-term abortion. Speaking for the majority, Justice Kennedy declared that "the law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice."

"But it is not a proper function of government to dictate medical practices," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "If a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is for her and her doctor—not Congress or the judiciary—to decide which medical procedure is most appropriate.

"Is the 'Partial-Birth Abortion' ban constitutional? Not if the Constitution is meant to guarantee a woman's right to her life, liberty and the pursuit of her happiness."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, September 15, 2006

Gene Therapy Cures Men Dying of Cancer

Posted by ARI Media at 11:40 PM

Irvine, CA—"Dr Steven Rosenberg and his team of scientists at the National Cancer Institute should be congratulated for developing a gene therapy that eradicated cancer from two dying men," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

The successful treatment using the patients' genetically modified version of their own white blood cells is reported today in the journal Science.

"Such a magnificent achievement shows the power of reason and science to unveil nature's secrets, create new life-enhancing technologies, and improve human life.

"At a time when reason and science are under attack in American universities, schools and churches, this new medical treatment reminds us that these are crucial values worth defending—and that our very lives depend on successfully doing so."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

WHO Sides with Humanity Against Mosquitoes and Environmentalists

Posted by ARI Media at 11:37 PM

Irvine, CA—The World Health Organization, conceding that alternative methods to fight malaria have failed, will start encouraging the use of DDT around the world.

"For anyone who cares about human life, this is excellent news," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "The widespread use of DDT against malaria-carrying mosquitoes can prevent the infection of hundreds of millions of people every year and save millions of lives."

Before environmentalists managed to ban or severely restrict its use, DDT led to a dramatic reduction in malaria cases wherever it was used.

"The decades-long environmentalist opposition to DDT never had any basis in science: for half a century DDT use has been proven safe to humans and deadly to mosquitoes.

"The environmentalists responsible for banning or tightly restricting the use of DDT are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people and for the untold suffering of hundreds of millions more, most of them children.

"The environmentalists' persistent opposition to the use of DDT shows that they are indifferent to human suffering. This is because environmentalism places the 'preservation' of nature above the requirements of human survival and prosperity. Given the choice of eradicating malarial mosquitoes with a man-made pesticide or condemning millions of people to suffering and death, committed environmentalists have consistently opted for the latter.

"Environmentalism is an anti-human ideology that must be eradicated intellectually in order to ensure that deadly diseases such as malaria can be eradicated physically."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

As Predicted...

Posted by Alan Germani at 8:00 PM

…by Yaron Brook in this ARI press release, Advanced Cell Technology's attempt to develop a means of harvesting stem cells that meets the approval of religious critics of stem-cell research has failed. From an Australian news source:

The breakthrough technique was meant to answer critics at the papal palace, the White House and beyond, who have long argued that it was ethically reproachable to attempt to save one life by taking another.

But the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, Bishop Elio Sgreccia, told Reuters in an interview that the new method by Advanced Cell Technology Inc failed to overcome the church's many moral concerns.

Sgreccia said the procedure was wrong footed from the start—experimenting with embryos is reprehensible, as is use of "unnatural" in-vitro embryos created at fertility clinics, like the ones the US scientists employed in their research.

Advanced Cell then made things worse by extracting what could be a "totipotent" cell, Sgreccia said.

"This is not just any cell, but a cell capable of reproducing a human embryo,"Sgreccia said. He added that, in effect: "a second embryo is being destroyed".

The Vatican, and any religionist who sides with it on this issue, would rather protect a few embryonic cells—potential human lives—than save or extend millions of actual human lives. That these mystics call themselves "pro-life" while opposing efforts by scientists to prevent human death and misery is utterly reprehensible.

As Advanced Cell Technology has discovered, scientists can't please religionists who take their faith seriously. Neither well-reasoned arguments nor appeals to human life and happiness will stop religionists from condemning scientific research and procedures that conflict with their baseless beliefs. Rather than trying to avoid such unavoidable condemnation, scientists should proudly proclaim the life-serving potential of stem-cell technology—and point out the irrational, anti-life nature of those who would rather preserve clumps of cells than save human lives.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Stem Cell Breakthrough Won't Satisfy Religious Conservatives

Posted by ARI Media at 8:32 PM

Irvine, CA—"The researchers at Advanced Cell Technology should be congratulated for their scientific breakthrough," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "But their new method of creating stem cell lines will not stop religious opposition to scientific progress."

In developing a method of extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, the team was, in part, trying to address the concerns of those opposed to the destruction of embryos. As the team leader said: "There is no rational reason left to oppose this research."

"But there has never been a rational reason to oppose embryonic stem cell research," said Dr. Brook. "The opposition comes mainly from religious conservatives and is—by their own declaration—based on faith, not on reason. It is based on the irrational belief that a mere clump of cells is a full-fledged human being."

"There is no rational reason to morally oppose this research, and its potential to produce treatments for such diseases as diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's is ample reason to morally support it.

"It is a mistake to try to appease religious conservatives on this issue. What they are opposed to, fundamentally, is science as such."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

The Immoral Opposition to Cloning

Posted by ARI Media at 8:15 AM

Irvine, CA—This month marks the tenth anniversary of the birth of Dolly the sheep, the world's first cloned mammal. "That impressive scientific advance opened up a world of possible life-saving treatments—yet in the name of 'morality,' some perversely oppose cloning," said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"Motivated by a religious morality that says it is wrong for human beings to 'play God,' the opponents of cloning claim cloning cheapens human life by making it just another part of nature scientists can manipulate and control.

"This is a profound inversion of the truth. Cloning has the potential to stimulate scientific advances that would drastically improve human life, perhaps giving us the ability to someday create new skin for burn victims, or spinal rod cells for victims of paralysis.

"Those attempting to stand in the way of such advances are the real enemies of human life."

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Big Thanks to Big Pharma

Posted by ARI Media at 9:39 PM

IRVINE, CA—In response to today's announcement of a major advancement in Bird Flu vaccines, Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute said, "Individuals worldwide can feel safer—all thanks to GlaxoSmithKline, one of the hated pharmaceutical companies. Critics condemn companies like GSK for their profit-seeking—ignoring the fact that Big Pharma only makes profits by saving and improving our lives. We at the Ayn Rand Institute would like to give our heartfelt thanks to GlaxoSmithKline and the other heroes of the pharmaceutical industry."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Bush's Opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Anti-Life

Posted by ARI Media at 4:33 PM

Dear Editor:

President Bush's veto of a bill to remove restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is immoral. Being the first veto of Bush's presidency, it shows once again his commitment to impose his religious agenda on all Americans.

Contrary to the claims of Bush and others who oppose embryonic stem cell research, embryos destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells are not human beings. These embryos are smaller than a grain of sand, and consist of, at most, a few hundred undifferentiated cells. They have no body or body parts. They do not see, hear, feel, or think. While these early embryos have the potential to become human beings—they are not actual human beings.

To restrict the freedom of scientists to use clusters of cells to do such research on the basis of religious dogma is to violate their rights—as well as the rights of all who would contribute to, invest in, or benefit from this research.

Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to revolutionize medicine and save millions of lives—and it should proceed unimpeded.

David Holcberg and Alex Epstein

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Reason Delivers Again

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:56 PM

Here are two welcome reports from Medical News Today:

Blood Test Predicts Detects Lung Cancer Years Before CT Scan

16 Jul 2006

A new blood test is able to correctly predict non-small-cell lung cancer in patients years before any CT scan can detect it, say researchers from the University of Kentucky, USA. The test identifies human immune response to tumors.

Non-small-cell lung cancer patients have a 40% chance of living for five years or more after diagnosis. 50% of patients die within the first year. It is the most common lung cancer.

If further studies confirm its reliability, this will become the first blood test to predict cancer since the PSA (prostate specific antigen) test.

You can read about this research in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

Lung cancer kills more people around the world than any other cancer. 10 million new lung cancer diagnoses are made each year. Over three quarters of all lung-cancer patients are/were long-term regular smokers.

At the moment the most common way of diagnosing lung-cancer is with a CT Scan (computed tomography). However, CT scans are not completely accurate and patients often have to have a piece of the lump in their lung extracted for further tests - they have to have a biopsy. Biopsies for lung cancer can be painful. It is common for the biopsy test to find there was no cancer at all.

The biggest problem with lung cancer survival is that many patients are diagnosed when the cancer is well advanced.

This new blood test has an accuracy rate of at least 90% among people who have lung cancer and an extremely low false positive rate, say the researchers. In other words, unlike CT scans, this blood test does not commonly indicate lung cancer when it is not there.

In this study the researchers used blood samples from lung cancer patients years before they had been diagnosed. The test was surprisingly accurate in predicting lung cancer.

According to Dr. Zhong, lead researcher, and team, lung cancer can be present three to five years before reaching the conventional size limits of radiographic detection.

As with most cancers, the earlier it can be detected, the easier it is to cure the patient.

[and]

Brain-computer Link Allows A Paralyzed Patient To Perform Basic Tasks

16 Jul 2006  

A multi-institutional team of researchers has found that people with long-standing, severe paralysis can generate signals in the area of the brain responsible for voluntary movement and these signals can be detected, recorded, routed out of the brain to a computer and converted into actions -- enabling a paralyzed patient to perform basic tasks.

In the 13 July 2006 issue of Nature, the researchers presented the first published results from the initial participants in a clinical trial of the BrainGate Neural Interface System, a "neuromotor prosthesis" developed by Cyberkinetics Neurotechnology Systems, Inc., of Foxborough, Mass.

The first patient, Matthew Nagle, a 25-year-old Massachusetts man with a severe spinal cord injury, has been paralyzed from the neck down since 2001. After having the BrainGate sensor implanted on the surface of his brain at Rhode Island Hospital in June 2004, he learned to control a computer cursor simply by thinking about moving it…. [Read the rest.]

As always, it is worth noting that all such advances are products not of faith, nor of feelings, but of reason: man’s only means of knowledge.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Of Mice and Men

Posted by Craig Biddle at 7:06 AM

More excellent news about stem cell research, this time from John's Hopkins University:

Stem cells taken from mouse embryos have helped paralyzed rats move again, U.S. researchers said on Monday.

The study was the best evidence so far that controversial embryonic stem cells might be used to treat people with spinal cord and other traumatic injuries, the researchers said.

"This study provides a 'recipe' for using stem cells to reconnect the nervous system," Dr. Douglas Kerr of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine said in a statement.

"It raises the notion that we can eventually achieve this in humans, although we have a long way to go … We found that we needed a combination of all of the treatments in order to restore function."

Kerr and colleagues used a soup of compounds called growth factors to cause stem cells from the mouse embryos to develop into a type of nerve cell called a motor neuron.

Writing in the Annals of Neurology, they said the transplanted cells, combined with the right mix of compounds, helped paralyzed rats regrow some of their nerve cells and use their hind legs.

"This work is a remarkable advance that can help us understand how stem cells might be used to treat injuries and disease and begin to fulfill their great promise," said Dr. Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, which funded the study.

Stem cells are the body's master cells and can be found circulating in the blood and in tissues. Scientists hope to learn to use them to regenerate cells, organs and tissues.

It's good to play God.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Altruism: The Morality of Suffering and Death
(Exhibit 347R: Organ Donation)

Posted by Craig Biddle at 5:12 PM

The widespread acceptance of altruism (the fallacious notion that being moral consists in self-sacrificially serving others) causes continuous human suffering and death. Yet another example of this fact is illustrated in a recent article by Dr. Sally Satel (a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute). Because of the widespread acceptance of altruism in America, "it is against the law to receive money or anything of value in exchange for an organ, a principle set down in 1984 by the National Organ Transplantation Act."

Violators face fines of up to $50,000 and felony prison terms of up to five years. "Organ transplantation is built upon altruism and public trust. If anything shakes that trust, then everyone loses," says the [United Network for Organ Sharing] web site. But so many have lost already: eighteen people die each day while waiting for an organ and, without changes, the situation is virtually guaranteed to worsen.

Not only do eighteen people die each day while waiting for an organ; many people also suffer as they wait. Why are so many people suffering and dying while waiting for organs? Because the acceptance of altruism has convinced Americans that it is better for some people to suffer and die than it would be for others to donate organs for a profit. Profit is plainly selfish; thus, according to altruism, it would sully the whole "beautiful" altruistic "ideal" of people giving away organs for free.

Moreover, on the premise of altruism, it is wrong for those who possess more wealth or more virtue to benefit from that fact; thus, the authorities must see to it that the distribution of organs has nothing to do with who can afford to purchase an organ or whether the recipient is an innocent child, or a heroic soldier, or a convicted murderer.

To maintain the equal distribution of scarce organs, the argument goes, the community (e.g., UNOS) must exercise total control. According to Mark Fox, head of the UNOS ethics committee: "The prisoner in California gets the heart transplant because he needs it and is first on the list. It's blind to whether you're a saint or a sinner or a celebrity. That's key to maintaining the public trust."

God forbid we lose that "public trust."

What about the obvious fact that a free market for organs would create a much greater supply of organs than could ever exist when profiting from organ donation is prohibited? In other words, what about Economics 101? The answer is that given the fundamental role of morality in human thinking, even the most clearly relevant facts become irrelevant in the minds of those who accept the morality of altruism.

"Almost everyone agrees that an incentive program would encourage more donation than would a purely altruistic approach," says Adam Kolber of the University of San Diego Law School. "It is as if the institution of organ donation is being used as a means to further another goal, not specifically related to organ donation."

Yes, the institution of organ donation is being used as a means to further another goal—the altruistic goal of seeing to it that people suffer and die.

The problem is that the system itself may be the cause of the shortage it is charged with regulating. As nephrologist Benjamin Hippen has observed, the human cost of this is a system "degenerat[ing] into an equal opportunity to die on the waiting list."...

Yes, on one level, the system is the cause of the shortage it is charged with regulating—but the system is only the proximate cause, not the fundamental cause. The fundamental cause is the widespread acceptance of the morality of altruism—which is perpetuated by everyone who refuses to challenge the dogma that being moral consists in being selfless. The solution to such atrocities is for people to repudiate altruism and embrace egoism.

Comments:

From Justin Vogt, June 14, 2006

I am confused how offering someone incentive for their heart as opposed to just asking them to donate it would increase the number of hearts available on the market. The donor wouldn't exactly get a chance to enjoy that incentive, you know?

With other organs (i.e., kidneys, blood vessels, pieces of liver, skin), though, an incentive would result in more people donating, just as offering money for sperm and eggs results in large amounts of both being donated (although, in the case of sperm it's not exactly an invasive procedure).

So, I can see where allowing people to freely trade in organs could result in more of certain, but not all, organs.

From Craig Biddle, June 14, 2006

Dear Justin,

Thank you for your note.

Many people who have not chosen to donate their organs (including their heart) when they die would choose to do so if it meant that their families or loved ones would receive payment for the donation. So the argument does apply to all organs. For more on this subject, see this excellent op-ed by David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post